Posted on 07/22/2002 7:57:27 AM PDT by scripter
My mouth dropped open when I read the name of the site. "Butterfly Kisses" is one of biggest surprise hits in the history of the Billboard charts, and should have been included in VH1's "100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders," but strangely was excluded.
I wholeheartedly agree that Carlisle should go after them tooth and nail, if only to expose them.
These people need some serious "counseling"...
Watch out, or someone may accuse you of "hate" speech. We are definitely heading into the end times...
I think you mean "abhorrent." (I HOPE that's what you mean.)
These people need some serious "counseling"...
My gut reaction is "rope therapy."
The more we fight immoral relativism the longer we’ll be around.
I hardly ever make a goof like that, but you're right. I had meant to use "abhor" as an adjective, but I spelled "abhor" wrong too. And you're right, the adjective form of "abhor" IS abhorrent, as in detestable, repulsive, repugnant, and disgusting.
That'll teach not to create my own words anymore... :)
I hope you're right. At the rate it's going though, the ancient Mayans may just have been on to something, as their calendar ends in the year 2012.
You won't even want to read the words on the personal stories page - one author recalls her "first time" (at 10 years old) with her 12-year-old friend's mother. The article goes into touch-by-touch pornographic detail. Completely disgusting.
I'm not really sure that legal action can be taken against just the promotion of any illegal act. If that were the case then anyone who has ever advocated repealing any law that criminalized any action would be in trouble.
Only if the server is located within the US, actually. If it is outside the US, it is outside our jurisdiction, and the law cannot do much, if anything.
The citizenry, on the other hand, could contact their ISP, or even perhaps do things like a DOS attack or hack into it, putting up some not very nice things. (Not that I am advising that, of course. It is, nevertheless, an option, and should be taken only as such.)
You obviously have never been to their website, then. I know, having visited there in the past (I am not sure where it is now, though. It keeps disappearing and reappearing like a cockroach.), they had a manual available to its members on how to get close to, befriend, and molest a child, as well as how to get away with it. In fact, the existence of this manual is part of the plaintiff's case in Curley v. NAMBLA, a $100 million lawsuit pending in Massachusetts (You may have heard of this case; this is the one where the ACLU decided to defend NAMBLA pro bono.).
There should be no question, no doubt, NAMBLA is a criminal organization. So why isn't John Ashcroft investigating them under the RICO statutes at an absolute minimum?
Well, that is a telling comment....from someone who knows, eh?
I think that there is a lot of kinky sex among the kind of driven people who rise to the top in business and politics, and that they are the people supplying "cover" by pooh-poohing popular outrage over vice, morals outrages, and their perpetrators.
Of course, if you follow that road, you wind up unable to make a moral case for keeping a Dahmer or a Gacy or a Charlie Manson in prison -- because it's all morals!
He might be, but right now he's up to his eyeballs in homicidal Arabs.
Still, I'm deeply gratified that the prosecution of people like the NAMBLA conspirators is in the hands of an upright man like John Ashcroft, rather than those of his predecessor.
Actually, I wonder if a majority of the American Psychological Association don't agree with you. You're aware, I'm sure (I can send you a link or an article), of how the gay movement rolled the APA in the early 70's and got homosexuality deleted from the APA's diagnotic manual as Step One of their bustin'-out move to get out of the shadows and into the Clinton White House.
Looking at survey data from the APA membership, it would appear that a majority of the older members still believe that the origins of homosexuality are psychological as well as genetic.
The younger members have been propagandized assiduously for over 30 years by homosexual APA members who have taken care to dominate the appropriate committees and control its message on homosexuality, both to the practice and to the public. But the older members still aren't buying it. That refusal to change professional opinions despite all the propaganda and eyewash that's been thrown out there is damning, AFAIC, of the APA/gay message.
Oh, and one last cavil -- people using the term "pedophilia", beware. It's the latest sand-in-the-eyes tactic by the gays and their media pals, to confuse homosexual ephebophilia, or love of youth (usually called "pederasty" instead), with the pedophilia that preys on young children (under age 8, say).
We have to be clear about terms. But at some point the distinction between an urge to ephebophilia and one toward pedophilia begins to blur. I'm sure there's a substantial difference between the two for the diagnostician, but how do you tell on the street?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.